Ex Parte Shane - Page 20

          Appeal No. 2005-1115                                                        
          Application 09/269,369                                                      

          USPQ2d 1619, 1622-23 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“In this case, the patent            
          discloses no novel use of claim words. Ordinarily, therefore,               
          ‘substantially’ means ‘considerable in . . . extent,’ American              
          Heritage Dictionary Second College Edition 1213 (2d ed. 1982), or           
          ‘largely but not wholly that which is specified,’ Webster’s Ninth           
          New Collegiate Dictionary 1176 (9th ed. 1983).”); Seattle Box               
          Co., Inc. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818,              
          826, 221 USPQ 568, 573-74 (Fed. Cir. 1984).                                 
                    Jackson would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill             
          in this art that in the preferred form of his invention, angle or           
          elbow fittings 28 of diffuser C can be “pitched or angularly                
          related to the head [21] in the desired manner” (col. 3, ll. 50-            
          62, and col. 5, ll. 17-19).  Thus, prima facie, one of ordinary             
          skill in this art routinely following the teachings of Jackson              
          would have pitched or angled nozzles 27 so as to mix and agitate            
          the fluid in container A in any desired manner, including a                 
          “substantially” semicircular nozzle arrangement.  See B.F.                  
          Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft Braking Sys. Corp., 72 F.3d 1577, 1582,            
          37 USPQ2d 1314, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“When obviousness is based           
          on a particular prior art reference, there must be a showing of a           
          suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of that                    
          reference. [Citation omitted.] This suggestion or motivation need           
          not be expressly stated. [Citation omitted.]”).  In this respect,           
          the examiner cites Vretman Fig. 3 as evidence that, prima facie,            
          one of ordinary skill in the art would have used a nozzle                   
          arrangement that is more semicircular than that shown in Jackson            
          Fig. 2 (answer, page 4).  I agree with the examiner’s position.             
          See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA                
          1981)(“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a            
          secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure           
          of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention              
                                          20                                          


Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007